SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Saudi soldiers stand at attention in front of tanks near the border with Yemen in 2010 (AFP)
UNITED NATIONS - The West continues its strong political and military support to one of its longstanding allies in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia -- despite withering criticism of the kingdom's battlefield excesses in the ongoing war in neighboring Yemen.
A Saudi-led coalition has been accused of using banned cluster bombs, bombing civilian targets and destroying hospitals - either by accident or by design--using weapons provided primarily by the US, UK and France.
UNITED NATIONS - The West continues its strong political and military support to one of its longstanding allies in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia -- despite withering criticism of the kingdom's battlefield excesses in the ongoing war in neighboring Yemen.
A Saudi-led coalition has been accused of using banned cluster bombs, bombing civilian targets and destroying hospitals - either by accident or by design--using weapons provided primarily by the US, UK and France.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said last week the armed conflict in Yemen continues to take a terrible toll on civilians, with at least 81 civilians reportedly killed and 109 injured in December.
As a result, the toll of civilian casualties, recorded between 26 March and 31 December 2015, are estimated at more than 8,000 people, including nearly 2,800 killed and more than 5,300 wounded.
But Western powers -- which are quick to condemn and impose sanctions on countries accused of civilian killings- have refused to take any drastic action against Saudi Arabia or its coalition partners, including Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.
The Saudi stranglehold is increasingly linked to a thriving multi-billion dollar arms market -- with British, French and mostly American military suppliers providing sophisticated weapons, including state-of-the-art fighter planes, helicopters, missiles, battle tanks and electronic warfare systems.
The arms supplying countries, for obvious reasons, are unwilling to jeopardize their markets, specifically Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi arsenal alone includes Boeing F-15 fighter planes (US supplied), Tornado strike aircraft (UK), Aerospatiale Puma and Dauphin attack helicopters (French), Bell, Apache and Sikorsky helicopters (US), Boeing E-3A Airborne Warning Control System (US), Sidewinder, Sparrow and Stinger missiles (US) and Abrams and M60 battle tanks (US).
Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a Senior Research Fellow with the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, told IPS that for years, the US government has documented Saudi human rights abuses in its own reports, including the State Department.
"Yet the United States continues to provide a largely open-ended weapons supply line to the Saudi government. It's time for the US government to act in accordance with the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and with its own laws and suspend arms transfers to Saudi Arabia," she said.
She argued US weapons manufacturers' profit motives for continuing massive weapons sales to Saudi Arabia should not drive US military and foreign policy.
"The US Defense Department may benefit in the short term by keeping some weapons supply lines open with foreign orders. But the risks to US military personnel and US interests should be given far greater weight in decision making," said Goldring who also represents the Acronym Institute on conventional weapons and arms transfer issues, at the United Nations.
The current issue of Time magazine says Saudi Arabia continues to spend a bigger portion of its economy on defence than any other nation (11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) compared with 3.5 percent by the US).
"It burns through $6 billion a month to bomb Yemen, an ill-advised war that has come to define the abrupt change brought by King Salman since he assumed the throne a year ago," said Time.
But future military spending is likely to falter due to a sharp decline in oil prices--dropping to less than $30 per barrel this week, down from $110 in early 2014.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, from 2010-2014, the United Kingdom and the United States were Saudi Arabia's top weapons suppliers.
The United Kingdom accounted for 36 percent of the Saudis' weapons deliveries, just edging out the United States, which accounted for 35 percent of Saudi weapons imports. France was a distant third at 6 percent.
In an article in Counter Punch published last November, William D. Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project the Center for International Policy and a senior adviser to the Security Assistance Monitor, said the recent surge in US arms transfers to the Middle East is part of an unprecedented boom in major US arms sales that has been presided over by the administration of President Barack Obama.
"The majority of the Obama administration's major arms sales have gone to the Middle East and Persian Gulf, with Saudi Arabia topping the list with over $49 billion in new agreements."
"This is particularly troubling given the complex array of conflicts raging throughout the region, and given the Saudi regime's use of U.S.-supplied weaponry in its military intervention in Yemen," Hartung said.
He also pointed out that the Obama administration has made arms sales a central tool of its foreign policy, in part as a way of exerting military influence without having to put "boots on the ground" in large numbers, as the Bush administration did in Iraq--with disastrous consequences.
"The Obama administration's push for more Mideast arms sales has been a bonanza for U.S. weapons contractors, who have made increased exports a primary goal as Pentagon spending levels off. Not only do foreign sales boost company profits, but they also help keep open production lines that would otherwise have to close due to declining orders from the Pentagon," said Hartung.
For example, he pointed out, earlier this year it was reported that Boeing had concluded a deal to sell 40 F-18s to Kuwait, which will extend the life of the programme for another year or more beyond its current projected end date of early 2017.
Similarly, the General Dynamics M-1 tank has been surviving on a combination of Congressional add-ons and a deal for tanks and tank upgrades for Saudi Arabia.
"But it's not just about money. U.S.-supplied arms are fueling conflict in the region. The most troubling recent sales is a deal in the works that would supply $1 billion or more in bombs and missiles for the Saudi Air Force, again for use in the Yemen war," Hartung added.
Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters took to the streets in the Canadian capital of Ottawa last month demanding the cancellation of a hefty 10.5 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia which included light armoured military vehicles.
The contract, signed by the previous government, was described as one of the largest arms deals between Canada and Saudi Arabia.
The protest was triggered by the execution of 47 prisoners, including a Shiite cleric, on terrorism charges.
Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, who dismissed the protest, was quoted as saying: "What is done is done and the contract is not something that we'll revisit."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
UNITED NATIONS - The West continues its strong political and military support to one of its longstanding allies in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia -- despite withering criticism of the kingdom's battlefield excesses in the ongoing war in neighboring Yemen.
A Saudi-led coalition has been accused of using banned cluster bombs, bombing civilian targets and destroying hospitals - either by accident or by design--using weapons provided primarily by the US, UK and France.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said last week the armed conflict in Yemen continues to take a terrible toll on civilians, with at least 81 civilians reportedly killed and 109 injured in December.
As a result, the toll of civilian casualties, recorded between 26 March and 31 December 2015, are estimated at more than 8,000 people, including nearly 2,800 killed and more than 5,300 wounded.
But Western powers -- which are quick to condemn and impose sanctions on countries accused of civilian killings- have refused to take any drastic action against Saudi Arabia or its coalition partners, including Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.
The Saudi stranglehold is increasingly linked to a thriving multi-billion dollar arms market -- with British, French and mostly American military suppliers providing sophisticated weapons, including state-of-the-art fighter planes, helicopters, missiles, battle tanks and electronic warfare systems.
The arms supplying countries, for obvious reasons, are unwilling to jeopardize their markets, specifically Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi arsenal alone includes Boeing F-15 fighter planes (US supplied), Tornado strike aircraft (UK), Aerospatiale Puma and Dauphin attack helicopters (French), Bell, Apache and Sikorsky helicopters (US), Boeing E-3A Airborne Warning Control System (US), Sidewinder, Sparrow and Stinger missiles (US) and Abrams and M60 battle tanks (US).
Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a Senior Research Fellow with the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, told IPS that for years, the US government has documented Saudi human rights abuses in its own reports, including the State Department.
"Yet the United States continues to provide a largely open-ended weapons supply line to the Saudi government. It's time for the US government to act in accordance with the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and with its own laws and suspend arms transfers to Saudi Arabia," she said.
She argued US weapons manufacturers' profit motives for continuing massive weapons sales to Saudi Arabia should not drive US military and foreign policy.
"The US Defense Department may benefit in the short term by keeping some weapons supply lines open with foreign orders. But the risks to US military personnel and US interests should be given far greater weight in decision making," said Goldring who also represents the Acronym Institute on conventional weapons and arms transfer issues, at the United Nations.
The current issue of Time magazine says Saudi Arabia continues to spend a bigger portion of its economy on defence than any other nation (11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) compared with 3.5 percent by the US).
"It burns through $6 billion a month to bomb Yemen, an ill-advised war that has come to define the abrupt change brought by King Salman since he assumed the throne a year ago," said Time.
But future military spending is likely to falter due to a sharp decline in oil prices--dropping to less than $30 per barrel this week, down from $110 in early 2014.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, from 2010-2014, the United Kingdom and the United States were Saudi Arabia's top weapons suppliers.
The United Kingdom accounted for 36 percent of the Saudis' weapons deliveries, just edging out the United States, which accounted for 35 percent of Saudi weapons imports. France was a distant third at 6 percent.
In an article in Counter Punch published last November, William D. Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project the Center for International Policy and a senior adviser to the Security Assistance Monitor, said the recent surge in US arms transfers to the Middle East is part of an unprecedented boom in major US arms sales that has been presided over by the administration of President Barack Obama.
"The majority of the Obama administration's major arms sales have gone to the Middle East and Persian Gulf, with Saudi Arabia topping the list with over $49 billion in new agreements."
"This is particularly troubling given the complex array of conflicts raging throughout the region, and given the Saudi regime's use of U.S.-supplied weaponry in its military intervention in Yemen," Hartung said.
He also pointed out that the Obama administration has made arms sales a central tool of its foreign policy, in part as a way of exerting military influence without having to put "boots on the ground" in large numbers, as the Bush administration did in Iraq--with disastrous consequences.
"The Obama administration's push for more Mideast arms sales has been a bonanza for U.S. weapons contractors, who have made increased exports a primary goal as Pentagon spending levels off. Not only do foreign sales boost company profits, but they also help keep open production lines that would otherwise have to close due to declining orders from the Pentagon," said Hartung.
For example, he pointed out, earlier this year it was reported that Boeing had concluded a deal to sell 40 F-18s to Kuwait, which will extend the life of the programme for another year or more beyond its current projected end date of early 2017.
Similarly, the General Dynamics M-1 tank has been surviving on a combination of Congressional add-ons and a deal for tanks and tank upgrades for Saudi Arabia.
"But it's not just about money. U.S.-supplied arms are fueling conflict in the region. The most troubling recent sales is a deal in the works that would supply $1 billion or more in bombs and missiles for the Saudi Air Force, again for use in the Yemen war," Hartung added.
Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters took to the streets in the Canadian capital of Ottawa last month demanding the cancellation of a hefty 10.5 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia which included light armoured military vehicles.
The contract, signed by the previous government, was described as one of the largest arms deals between Canada and Saudi Arabia.
The protest was triggered by the execution of 47 prisoners, including a Shiite cleric, on terrorism charges.
Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, who dismissed the protest, was quoted as saying: "What is done is done and the contract is not something that we'll revisit."
UNITED NATIONS - The West continues its strong political and military support to one of its longstanding allies in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia -- despite withering criticism of the kingdom's battlefield excesses in the ongoing war in neighboring Yemen.
A Saudi-led coalition has been accused of using banned cluster bombs, bombing civilian targets and destroying hospitals - either by accident or by design--using weapons provided primarily by the US, UK and France.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said last week the armed conflict in Yemen continues to take a terrible toll on civilians, with at least 81 civilians reportedly killed and 109 injured in December.
As a result, the toll of civilian casualties, recorded between 26 March and 31 December 2015, are estimated at more than 8,000 people, including nearly 2,800 killed and more than 5,300 wounded.
But Western powers -- which are quick to condemn and impose sanctions on countries accused of civilian killings- have refused to take any drastic action against Saudi Arabia or its coalition partners, including Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.
The Saudi stranglehold is increasingly linked to a thriving multi-billion dollar arms market -- with British, French and mostly American military suppliers providing sophisticated weapons, including state-of-the-art fighter planes, helicopters, missiles, battle tanks and electronic warfare systems.
The arms supplying countries, for obvious reasons, are unwilling to jeopardize their markets, specifically Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi arsenal alone includes Boeing F-15 fighter planes (US supplied), Tornado strike aircraft (UK), Aerospatiale Puma and Dauphin attack helicopters (French), Bell, Apache and Sikorsky helicopters (US), Boeing E-3A Airborne Warning Control System (US), Sidewinder, Sparrow and Stinger missiles (US) and Abrams and M60 battle tanks (US).
Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a Senior Research Fellow with the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, told IPS that for years, the US government has documented Saudi human rights abuses in its own reports, including the State Department.
"Yet the United States continues to provide a largely open-ended weapons supply line to the Saudi government. It's time for the US government to act in accordance with the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and with its own laws and suspend arms transfers to Saudi Arabia," she said.
She argued US weapons manufacturers' profit motives for continuing massive weapons sales to Saudi Arabia should not drive US military and foreign policy.
"The US Defense Department may benefit in the short term by keeping some weapons supply lines open with foreign orders. But the risks to US military personnel and US interests should be given far greater weight in decision making," said Goldring who also represents the Acronym Institute on conventional weapons and arms transfer issues, at the United Nations.
The current issue of Time magazine says Saudi Arabia continues to spend a bigger portion of its economy on defence than any other nation (11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) compared with 3.5 percent by the US).
"It burns through $6 billion a month to bomb Yemen, an ill-advised war that has come to define the abrupt change brought by King Salman since he assumed the throne a year ago," said Time.
But future military spending is likely to falter due to a sharp decline in oil prices--dropping to less than $30 per barrel this week, down from $110 in early 2014.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, from 2010-2014, the United Kingdom and the United States were Saudi Arabia's top weapons suppliers.
The United Kingdom accounted for 36 percent of the Saudis' weapons deliveries, just edging out the United States, which accounted for 35 percent of Saudi weapons imports. France was a distant third at 6 percent.
In an article in Counter Punch published last November, William D. Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Project the Center for International Policy and a senior adviser to the Security Assistance Monitor, said the recent surge in US arms transfers to the Middle East is part of an unprecedented boom in major US arms sales that has been presided over by the administration of President Barack Obama.
"The majority of the Obama administration's major arms sales have gone to the Middle East and Persian Gulf, with Saudi Arabia topping the list with over $49 billion in new agreements."
"This is particularly troubling given the complex array of conflicts raging throughout the region, and given the Saudi regime's use of U.S.-supplied weaponry in its military intervention in Yemen," Hartung said.
He also pointed out that the Obama administration has made arms sales a central tool of its foreign policy, in part as a way of exerting military influence without having to put "boots on the ground" in large numbers, as the Bush administration did in Iraq--with disastrous consequences.
"The Obama administration's push for more Mideast arms sales has been a bonanza for U.S. weapons contractors, who have made increased exports a primary goal as Pentagon spending levels off. Not only do foreign sales boost company profits, but they also help keep open production lines that would otherwise have to close due to declining orders from the Pentagon," said Hartung.
For example, he pointed out, earlier this year it was reported that Boeing had concluded a deal to sell 40 F-18s to Kuwait, which will extend the life of the programme for another year or more beyond its current projected end date of early 2017.
Similarly, the General Dynamics M-1 tank has been surviving on a combination of Congressional add-ons and a deal for tanks and tank upgrades for Saudi Arabia.
"But it's not just about money. U.S.-supplied arms are fueling conflict in the region. The most troubling recent sales is a deal in the works that would supply $1 billion or more in bombs and missiles for the Saudi Air Force, again for use in the Yemen war," Hartung added.
Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters took to the streets in the Canadian capital of Ottawa last month demanding the cancellation of a hefty 10.5 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia which included light armoured military vehicles.
The contract, signed by the previous government, was described as one of the largest arms deals between Canada and Saudi Arabia.
The protest was triggered by the execution of 47 prisoners, including a Shiite cleric, on terrorism charges.
Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, who dismissed the protest, was quoted as saying: "What is done is done and the contract is not something that we'll revisit."
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."
Mamdani won the House minority leader's district by double digits in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, prompting one critic to ask, "Do those voters not matter?"
Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, but Democratic U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—whose district Mamdani won by double digits—is still refusing to endorse him, "blue-no-matter-who" mantra be damned.
Criticism of Jeffries (D-N.Y.) mounted Friday after he sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the democratic socialist Mamdani's proposed policies—including a rent freeze, universal public transportation, and free supermarkets—during an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" earlier this week.
"He's going to have to demonstrate to a broader electorate—including in many of the neighborhoods that I represent in Brooklyn—that his ideas can actually be put into reality," Jeffries said in comments that drew praise from scandal-ridden incumbent Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who opted to run independently. Another Democrat, disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is also running on his own.
"Shit like this does more to undermine faith in the institution of the Democratic Party than anything Mamdani might ever say or do," Amanda Litman, co-founder and executive director of Run For Something—a political action group that recruits young, diverse progressives to run for down-ballot offices—said on social media in response to Jeffries' refusal to endorse Mamdani.
"He won the primary! Handily!!" Litman added. "Does that electorate not count? Do those voters not matter?"
Writer and professor Roxane Gay noted on Bluesky that "Jeffries is an establishment Democrat. He will always work for the establishment. He is not a disruptor or innovator or individual thinker. Within that framework, his gutless behavior toward Mamdani or any progressive candidate makes a lot of sense."
City College of New York professor Angus Johnston said on the social network Bluesky that "even if Jeffries does eventually endorse Mamdani, the only response available to Mamdani next year if someone asks him whether he's endorsing Jeffries is three seconds of incredulous laughter."
Jeffries has repeatedly refused to endorse Mamdani, a staunch supporter of Palestinian liberation and vocal opponent of Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza. The minority leader—whose all-time top campaign donor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker—has especially criticized Mamdani's use of the phrase "globalize the intifada," a call for universal justice and liberation.
Mamdani's stance doesn't seem to have harmed his support among New York's Jewish voters, who according to recent polling prefer him over any other mayoral candidate by a double-digit margin.